overcommit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only aggregation of capacity data, which is intrinsically low risk, but it does not say what is returned, whether ratios are per-host or per-cluster, or how zero-physical-resource cases are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the core comparison front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument aggregation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally state what the ratios look like or what host scope is analyzed. It conveys the concept adequately but leaves the return shape and scope unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific computation: summing vCPU against physical cores/threads and assigned RAM against physical RAM to derive overcommit ratios. That is a clear verb+resource. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like host_info or performance, but those siblings cover different domains so ambiguity is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus host_info, performance, or diagnostico_completo, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.